Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)/1

1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: A GAR cannot decide to merge, but it can decide to delist. Hog Farm, a proper merge discussion should be started. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 and 2016, significant amounts of the article's content [were removed Buckshot06 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)], mainly by Buckshot06. There is a discussion supporting the removal of this content at Talk:1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)#Lot of content removed after GAN review, but the article's honors section (which is unsourced) is a series of tables that still assumes that the removed content is relevant to the article subject. This relevance of this content needs sorted out and finalized whether or not this belongs. Much of what remains in the article is sourced to Global Security, which is no longer considered to be reliable. In fact, as almost all of the remaining content is more about the division as a whole than this subunit, I'm not even convinced that this warrants a separate article - even with the content removed since promotion included, as that is focused on the HQ unit of the 7th Division. Hog Farm _Talk 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 7th Infantry Division (United States). No prejudice to recreation if substantial details of the actions of the 1st Brigade are added and reliably sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Buckshot06. Separate brigades that are part of a division are rarely notable on their own, and this is no exception. Intothat darkness 13:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case for a merge seems strong, though theoretically I suppose the article could be remade if coverage that treats it separately comes to light, as is the case for several British brigades. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.